Mr Wright runs a cutting edge equine hospital in Newmarket, carrying out life-saving surgery on top-class horses, including former Derby and Oaks winners and stallions at stud worth tens of millions of pounds.

He and Mrs Wright, a former legal secretary and riding instructor, married in 1997 and divorced in 2008, having separated in 2006.

As part of the divorce order, Mrs Wright, who lives with the couple's youngest daughter, aged 10, was handed £75,000 yearly payments, of which £33,200 was spousal maintenance for her personal upkeep.

The court heard Mr Wright steadfastly made the payments, but was worried that supporting his wife would be unaffordable after he retires at 65.

Judge Lynn Roberts last year agreed that there was no good reason why Mrs Wright had not done a stroke of paid work in the six years since the divorce.

The judge criticised her for being "evasive on the subject of her own earning capacity".

"The world of work has innumerable possibilities these day...vast numbers of women with children just get on with it and Mrs Wright should have done as well," the judge said.

Tracey Wright at home with her dogs (EAST NEWS PRESS AGENCY)

"I do not think the children will suffer if Mrs Wright has to work, and indeed a working mother at this stage of their lives may well provide them with a good role model.

"It is possible to find work that fits in with childcare responsibilities. I reject her other reasons relating to responsibilities for animals, or trees, or housekeeping.

"Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills...I am satisfied that she has worked on the basis...that she would be supported for life.

"It is essential... that she starts to work now," said the judge, who ordered that her personal maintenance payments from her ex-husband must cease, with a gradual tailing off over a five-year period leading up to his retirement.

Mark Johnston, for the wife, challenging that ruling, protested that having to care for a 10-year-old - the couple's older daughter being a boarding pupil at a public school - "is an inherent restriction on her ability to develop any kind of earning capacity in the next five years."

He warned that Judge Roberts' order would cause "a plummeting in the standard of living" of the youngest child.

The assets Mrs Wright received in the split "wouldn't come anywhere near allowing the wife to adjust without undue hardship...especially with one child still at home."

Mr Wright had been found to be "a man of integrity who had done nothing to mislead the court".

"But the judge found the wife was an unsatisfactory witness; particularly on the subject of her own earning capacity she was evasive", he added.

"The judge made it very clear that, within a couple of years, she would be expected to contribute financially.

"The question is whether there is a real prospect of establishing that the judge gave inadequate reasons for her decision that the husband should provide no spousal maintenance in his retirement. In my view there is no such prospect."

Lord Justice Pitchford said that "the order was never intended to provide the wife with an income for life".

And he concluded: "The onus will henceforth be on her. This application is dismissed."